Congressman Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia, said today on the House floor that survivors of the Benghazi terror attack have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements:

"On Tuesday I raised the question of why none of the Benghazi survivors, whether State Department, CIA, or private security contract employees have testified publicly before Congress," said Wolf.

"According to trusted sources that have contacted my office, many if not all of the survivors of the Benghazi attacks along with others at the Department of Defense, the CIA have been asked or directed to sign additional non-disclosure agreements about their involvement in the Benghazi attacks. Some of these new NDAs, as they call them, I have been told were signed as recently as this summer."

Wolf continued: "It is worth noting that the Marine Corps Times yesterday reported that the Marine colonel whose task force was responsible for special operations in northern and western Africa at the time of the attack is still on active duty despite claims that he retired. And therefore could not be forced to testify before Congress.

"If these reports are accurate, this would be a stunning revelation to any member of Congress, any member of Congress that finds this out and also more importantly to the American people. It also raises serious concerns about the priority of the administration's efforts to silence those with knowledge of the Benghazi attack in response.

"On Tuesday I raised the question of why none of the Benghazi survivors, whether State Department, CIA, or private security contract employees have testified publicly before Congress," said Wolf.

Greg Hicks testified before congress on May 8th and a transcript of that testimony is online.

Mark thompson testified before congress on May 8th as well and a transcript of his testimony is online and video of it is on Youtube.

Eric Nordstrom testified before congress on May 8th and a transcript of that testimony is online.

Additionally, Congressman Wolf is leaving out the fact that the survivors have already spoken. They have already told their stories of the terror attack. And they have done it on the record. In fact, they've done it twice. Within days of the attack, survivors were interviewed by FBI investigators. Transcripts of those interviews were made available to the Senate Intelligence Committee (with some redactions). Later, survivors spoke to investigators working for an independent review conducted on behalf of the State Department.

CIA and other intelligence officials would not testify publically because the CIA outpost in Benghazi was an operational CIA facility, so obvious national security issue come into play. In other words there are reasons to keep people with sensitive positions in the intelligence community from speaking publicly that don't involve government conspiracies. That, and the fact they're witnesses in an ongoing investigation.

"According to trusted sources that have contacted my office, many if not all of the survivors of the Benghazi attacks along with others at the Department of Defense, the CIA have been asked or directed to sign additional non-disclosure agreements about their involvement in the Benghazi attacks. Some of these new NDAs, as they call them, I have been told were signed as recently as this summer."

As for the non disclosures, depending on who the survivors are, the department of employment, individual access to secret or confidential materials, having them sign non disclosures would actually be a standard protocol, again for reasons that should be abundantly obvious. The spin, that this somehow represents a COVER UP is ludicrous on its face and Rep Wolf is banking on the fact that most people won't give a second thought to the inner workings of intelligence work, investigative work as it realtes to national security, and simply assume that the public will be given full access to all information relating to the incident.

asked or directed to sign additional non-disclosure agreements about their involvement in the Benghazi attacks

What do you suppose would be secret or classified about the experiences of these people during the attacks?

--

Think for yourself, question authority.

There would the before, during, and after which includes what their jobs are, why they were there, what happened, how they responded, and the aftermath. In those elements are substantial details that relate to what the US mission was at that time, procedures, and any number of other sensitive details that may only undermine national security if released publically. But thats beside the point. The survivors have been interviewed, twice, and their recollection of events was made available to Congress. If Wolf is claiming these people have been silenced, it is only for political purposes. If he really wanted to know what happened he could access the information. You or I couldn't but since when has the general public been able to access details related to ongoing investigations, be they local, national, or international?

why they were there, what happened, how they responded, and the aftermath. In those elements are substantial details that relate to what the US mission was at that time, procedures, and any number of other sensitive details that may only undermine national security if released publically.

Surely an account of how they experienced the events of that day is not sensitive to national security? We wouldn't need to know what their missions were and they could obviously make sure that they didn't slip any truly sensitive information.

The survivors have been interviewed, twice, and their recollection of events was made available to Congress. If Wolf is claiming these people have been silenced, it is only for political purposes.

Where is your source for this?

And why was Congress told that the Marine Corp general had retired when he is still active?

Surely an account of how they experienced the events of that day is not sensitive to national security? We wouldn't need to know what their missions were and they could obviously make sure that they didn't slip any truly sensitive information.

But who they are may be, as well as the tactics and/or tools they used to repel the attacks. Again, congress has this information so the idea that these folks have been silenced is demonstrably false. And as I stated, while the public may be curious about those details, the various investigations are still ongoing, that information is priviledged and will not be released until all investigations have concluded. That is standard practice for any law enforcement investigation.

The survivors have been interviewed, twice, and their recollection of events was made available to Congress. If Wolf is claiming these people have been silenced, it is only for political purposes.

Where is your source for this?

The internet. Fire up google, the information is publically available from a number of sources.

And why was Congress told that the Marine Corp general had retired when he is still active?

I don't know, but the issue is minutia. Congress can compel him to testify if he is retired so its a rather moot point, and if he isn't retired then the DoD can compel him to testify. So between the two entities there should be no issue in getting access to Bristol. But again, its another side show with the ominous undertones of conspiracy, when to date, no conspiracy has been uncovered. I suspect this is all just a way to put "Benghazi" back in the headlines under the guise of asking questions, many of which have already been addressed.

From those non-partisan folks over at Media Matters (and now I have to take a shower.)

They're leaving out the fact that the survivors have already spoken. They have already told their stories of the terror attack. And they have done it on the record. In fact, they've done it twice. Within days of the attack, survivors were interviewed by FBI investigators who are currently conducting an on-going criminal investigation into the assault. Transcripts of those interviews have reportedly been made available to the Senate Intelligence Committee (with some redactions). Later, survivors spoke to investigators working for an independent review conducted on behalf of the State Department.

So, they've been interviewed by the FBI and State Department, both organizations that are controled by the administration. "Interviews have reportedly been made available...with some redactions)

One of the roles of Congress, and I think that you know this very well, is to act as a watchdog on the administration. They CAN NOT perform this role unless they have DIRECT ACCESS to the actual sources. Would you have been comfortable had the FBI been charged with getting to the bottom of the Valerie Plame kerfluffle and passed along their findings to Congress? I'm thinking no.

And you haven't answered the underlying question about General Bristol. Why did the DoD lie to Congress about his status in the military?

And you haven't answered the underlying question about General Bristol. Why did the DoD lie to Congress about his status in the military?

I have answered, I said I don't know. But it also isn't clear that DoD lied. If he was still active he would be on post somewhere and thus easy to find. So there is a question as to the accuracy of the Marine Times report to the contrary.

I'll leave the damn horse alone when the people that are responsible for oversight have had access and have inteviewed ALL the people who have direct knowledge of the events of that disaster and everything has been brought out into the sunlight. Not until.

I would think it would have to deal with it being classified? But that's an obvious easy answer. All in all, the "transparency" of this government is lacking. Just about everything this government has its hands in isn't transparent at all. Loaded by cover-ups and scandals. These cover-ups and scandals are diversions to keep you from seeing what Obama really wants when fundamentally transforming a once proud nation.

This administration has a real problem with truth. From the GZ verdict to Benghazi. Look at the incompetency. Blamed it all on a freakin' video. A video. How does that sound? The whole attack was from a few rebels in the streets that were enraged over a video. Bullsh!t. That's what they want the stupids in this country to believe.

I think these people should be allowed to speak to anybody, other than MSNBC. Somehow MSNBC would spin this back on Americans in the name of tolerance. Bottom line, this was a planned attack and Obama has no real answers. They don't have answers because they don't care.

This is the same Obama that did a world tour apologizing for basically be part of America and has made foreign relations worse since being in office. I don't trust him and I can't wait until he's out of office. If a conservative doesn't get the WH next then our country is headed in the direction that all major powers have gone through.